“If the straightforward motivation for citizen science and citizen monitoring is the hope of making a great discovery, maybe we need to think about how to make these activities routine, an ongoing civic ritual that’s as much a public duty as voting.”

Stepping back from the specific instance, the big idea here — citizens monitoring infrastructure — is not a novel one, at least in the world of development, where people have tried to apply information, communication technology (ICT) for years. It just hasn’t been particularly well executed in many places yet.

Second, the incentive structure matters. Why should people contribute pictures or data? Are there monetary rewards? A lottery ticket? Public recognition for participation by government or media organizations?

Third, who participates matters, in terms of project design. Leveraging “citizens as sensors,” doesn’t work as well in places where the men have the cellphones and the women get the water. Pilots that asked people to send text messages about whether water pumps were working haven’t done well in Africa.

Fourth, there needs to be a low barrier to participation. If people are going to be involved, bandwidth constraints and user-centric software design matter.

Earlier this year, computer science professor David Culler created a prototype for “conscious clothing”, winning a one hundred thousand dollar grant from the National Institutes of Health, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

These wearable air quality sensors could be an important clinical tool for physicians and researchers to analyze changes in environmental conditions.

In the photo below, taken at the 2013 Health Datapalooza in Washington, DC, Culler shows off the prototype to Bryan Sivak, chief technology officer at the Department of Health and Human Services.

If you have other examples to share of projects that are collecting or creating data that’s used to hold government or corporations accountable, please share them in the comments or let us know on Twitter or email.

Cries for increased “transparency” has become a rallying cry across industries and governments, as consumers and citizens look for more information about what they’re eating, buying, breathing, drinking or how they are being governed. What “does transparency” means, and for whom?

Targeting transparency can have unexpected outcomes, particularly as humans and societies adopt and adapt novel technologies to suit their needs or goals. For instance, research at Northwestern found hospital report cards could actually decrease patient welfare. The dynamics of transparency are complex, given that systems for reporting may reveal corruption, fraud or abuse by powerful interests but can also expose people to retribution or discrimination.

[Radiation plumes in Japan]

“The challenge is to create and design transparency policies that actually work for people and don’t just waste time or create a bunch of information that’s difficult to understand or make organizations go through the fairly expensive processes of collecting information that nobody then goes on to use,” said professor Archon Fung, in a recent interview. “The policy challenge has to do with designing transparency policies so that they produce information that is actually highly valuable to people and that people can take action on.”

Many of the perils and promise of transparency have been explored at length in “Full Disclosure,” by the directors of the Ash Center’s Transparency Policy Project, from calorie counts to restaurant inspections. As is so often the case, such research raises as many questions as it answers. When and how do consumers respond to new information? What factors influence whether private companies respond to disclosure mandates by reducing the risks posed to consumers or improving practices? Where and when should policy makers apply disclosure versus other policy tools?

The answers to all of these questions are further complicated by the introduction of networked systems for communication and disclosure, particularly the emergence of powerful mobile devices and social media. The Ash Center is actively looking for examples of socially networked transparency systems that reduce risks and provide new tools for citizens and consumers to navigate the world. Examples of networked transparency include:

Data sources like Google Flu Trends, where the actions of individuals provide tacit information that can augment existing systems for early warning of outbreaks

In each of these examples, the collective actions of many individuals reporting information based on their experience, aggregations of reliable reports, or sensor data is collected and then disseminated in a way that makes the associated risks to the public risk more visible and transparent. Such networked transparency systems can then be adapted and used to inform individual choices or change behaviors of the entities creating the risks, saving lives or reducing harms.

Over the next several months, the Transparency Policy Project will be looking for more examples of networked transparency, from grassroots efforts created by public laboratories to reporting systems created by governments.

As you’d imagine, the people collaborating on the research (including the fellow writing this post) will be looking for tips, feedback, comments and links from you. Please email your ideas or pointers to alexanderbhoward [at] gmail.com, or reply to @digiphile or @sunshinepolicy on Twitter. Each week, we’ll gather together what we’ve learned to date and share a digest at this blog.

Unfortunately the series was based on data dinosaurs — so the map’s results are two to four years out of date. That’s not the reporters’ fault. It’s the latest government information available. Since 1988 when Congress first required annual reporting of toxic pollution, factory by factory, it has taken 18 months or so for the Environmental Protection Agency to process industry reporting and make public the results. And EPA’s overlay that models risk to human health is based on factories’ toxic releases in 2007 — and it cannot be used to determine real risks anyway, according to EPA’s website.

What families and businesses need and technology could now deliver is real time information – especially when there are spikes in dangerous toxic pollutants. But look for more data dinosaurs soon. The government has cancelled its most important annual compilation of data — The Statistical Abstract — and austerity is producing many other data casualties. But does it really make sense to take big chunks out of the factual foundation for public and private choices that took so long to build?